Tired of getting harassed when flying my sUAS

[LuvMyTJ]

Let's keep in mind that society has been trained by the media that "drones are bad & evil". Many people have fears, some real, some not. The laws are clear as mud so it will take court cases to set a precedent on how drones will be regulated in the future. We should all try to be good ambassadors of the hobby.

*Since this topic is hotly debated, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members to be respectful to others when posting. Thanks!

 

[WalterPDean]

I totally agree.

I even ask nearby people if they mind if I fly and make sure I am not close enough to bother them. I have had so many people thank me for asking and I always ask if they want to see what I am shooting. That gives them a comfort level. Often when they see the quality and equipment they realize we are serious professionals with a fun but expensive hobby

I was a cop for over 20 years and found that most people are reasonable. Once in awhile you get an egg head but it is like keeping score. If you respect them and their space the reasonable people far exceed egg heads

I find it is better to try and educate. I had someone who I asked if it would bother him or his team (he was a soccer coach) come to my defense. Someone actually came off the street and walked to the end of the football field to demand I stop flying. The coach said "he is not bothering you I asked him to fly to train my athletes not to be distracted".

Rather than start a war I packed up to fly another day without stress. I make it a point to go as far away as possible. As I am walking to my selected take off zone I ask as I enter the park and along the way if there are objections.

Believe me I have little in the way of fear but if any pilot goes out of their way to elevate a situation that hurts the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with explaining what your legal rights are however. If it gets elevated and they make a scene someone who calmly states the facts comes out looking professional and the other person not so much. Hopefully it sinks in and he has second thoughts next time

Thank you for making a good point

 

[Dallas Drone Guy]

Horrible (and wrong) information. Interfering with MANNED aircraft is not the same as interfering with a sUAS. Contrary to popular belief , we sUAS operators do NOT enjoy the protection afforded by the FAA that MANNED aircraft have and rightfully so. Night and day difference. Many people "assume" that when Congress stipulated that sUAS are aircraft and as such can be "controlled" by the FAA this also gave them the same umbrella of protection as manned aircraft. That's simply not the case.

Please show us a single court case where anyone was charged and tried for interfering with a hobby/commercial sUAS operation. Honestly, with the current status of our court system people can (and are) get away with shooting them down with firearms. It happens way to often and if any charges are filled they are local ordinance violations and not charges from the DOJ (FAA can't charge they submit case to the DOJ and if appropriate the DOJ files charges).

With all of the above being said, it's a very bad idea to interfere with a sUAS operation because distracting the operator could lead to a mishap. Being a very bad idea does not constitute "a terrorist crime" in any way.

If we are going to be self-appointed Subject Matter Experts on sUAS law etc we need to make sure we know what we are talking about and reiterating it correctly to the people we interact with.

Hey there Mr. High Horse telling me that my information is HORRIBLE and WRONG. Please read quote from aviation attorney who is a college professor that teaches drone law, extracted from an article in Forbes:
"According to Loretta Alkalay, an aviation attorney who teaches Drone Law at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute. --

But you think you are smarter than this person, apparently, and are better at interpreting federal law. I am not sure I put much faith in what you have to say at this point. I am imperfect and of course have been wrong before and will readily admit when that occurs, but you were so confident in your statement and preaching to all of us to be responsible with what we say on here. Make sure what we say is accurate. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

 

[BigAl07]

Hey there Mr. High Horse telling me that my information is HORRIBLE and WRONG. Please read quote from aviation attorney who is a college professor that teaches drone law, extracted from an article in Forbes:
"According to Loretta Alkalay, an aviation attorney who teaches Drone Law at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute. --

But you think you are smarter than this person, apparently, and are better at interpreting federal law. I am not sure I put much faith in what you have to say at this point. I am imperfect and of course have been wrong before and will readily admit when that occurs, but you were so confident in your statement and preaching to all of us to be responsible with what we say on here. Make sure what we say is accurate. Do you hold yourself to that same standard?

It’s almost sad (but very comical to say the least) that someone would even try to argue that those 2 acts are the same. That’s as much of a comment as you deserve.

 

[sar104]

I believe that one can be charged with a terrorist crime if they interfere with a pilot in control of an FAA regulated aircraft.

"According to Loretta Alkalay, an aviation attorney who teaches Drone Law at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft" and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison under this same statute. --

Before this goes any further off the rails, and since your first assertion (terrorist crime) doesn't, at least in terms of what you said, appear to be supported by your quoted legal authority (doesn't mention terrorism), could you at least clarify which statute you are referring to?

 

[Dallas Drone Guy]

I am not referring to a statute. I am referring to an article in Forbes. I don't want to be baited into the weeds of legal mumbo jumbo and pretend to be an aviation attorney. I clearly am not which is why I read what the TRUE experts have to say on the matter. If you would like to prove me wrong I actually LIKE being shown to be wrong. It means that I learned something new and improved my thinking. So if there is clarity that I don't know about please show me where to find it. I am still wondering where Big Al got his information that federal statutes DO specifically differentiate between manned and unmanned aircraft. He says it with such certainty that surely he has a source he can cite. I don't want to burn bridges on here over a petty disagreement. I just don't like being told my comment is horrible and wrong when it is actually not. There are likely broad interpretations because the statutes are ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way.

 

[sar104]

I am not referring to a statute. I am referring to an article in Forbes. I don't want to be baited into the weeds of legal mumbo jumbo and pretend to be an aviation attorney. I clearly am not which is why I read what the TRUE experts have to say on the matter. If you would like to prove me wrong I actually LIKE being shown to be wrong. It means that I learned something new and improved my thinking. So if there is clarity that I don't know about please show me where to find it. I am still wondering where Big Al got his information that federal statutes DO specifically differentiate between manned and unmanned aircraft. He says it with such certainty that surely he has a source he can cite. I don't want to burn bridges on here over a petty disagreement. I just don't like being told my comment is horrible and wrong when it is actually not. There are likely broad interpretations because the statutes are ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way.

I think the problem started when you stated that interfering with sUAS operations was a terrorist crime. You then quoted a law professor who did not appear even to mention terrorism or terrorism laws, and referenced a statute. You clearly posted that (post #203), so if you are now saying that you were not referring to a statute then your argument is even more confusing. No one is trying to bait you into anything so perhaps, alternatively, you could just cite the Forbes article to clear up the confusion.

 

[Dallas Drone Guy]

It’s almost sad (but very comical to say the least) that someone would even try to argue that those 2 acts are the same. That’s as much of a comment as you deserve.

I have been looking to find where I read that, and it appears that I am totally incorrect about the terrorist crime analysis. I said originally that "I believe" that you can be charged with a terrorist crime, said it that way because I wasn't positive... easy response would be, ..."actually that's not right, but you can be charged with a federal crime punishable by massive fines and several years in prison." Okay, so the point is (as a drone pilot talking to a person that is bothering you) that you should leave me alone.
Instead you were a jerk about it when you did not have to be. We need to be on the same team in these forums.
Then you went on to claim that there is a legal distinction between manned and unmanned aircraft. My response with the aviation attorney is to rebut your claim.

I was looking earlier to try and find where I read the terrorist crime analysis. I could not find it, but did find the paper in the link below. Pretty interesting. It says (basically) that it is obvious that a uas and a manned aircraft are not the same and should not be treated as such. But they are both currently defined legally as aircraft and therefore ARE treated the same legally, even though in many cases it is ridiculous. You seem like an experienced person, and this forum should be a friendly place. So here I will say that I cannot find where interfering with a drone operator is a terrorist crime (even though it is still a federal crime punishable by huge fines and time in prison). And I hope that you will admit that until congress redefines aircraft and defines drone, the two ARE legally the same even if it is weird and unfair etc.
The point of my original comment was to get people to leave you alone while piloting your drone, so if we need to say "not terrorist activity, but punishable by years in federal prison" jeez, hopefully they still get the point and move on.
https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-01/LM-197_0.pdf

 

[Dallas Drone Guy]

I think the problem started when you stated that interfering with sUAS operations was a terrorist crime. You then quoted a law professor who did not appear even to mention terrorism or terrorism laws, and referenced a statute. You clearly posted that (post #203), so if you are now saying that you were not referring to a statute then your argument is even more confusing. No one is trying to bait you into anything so perhaps, alternatively, you could just cite the Forbes article to clear up the confusion.

I can see how that could be confusing. The quote from the lawyer was not to bolster my terrorism claim, it was to point out that there are many instances in which manned aircraft and drones ARE treated the same legally. Big Al said that they are not.

 

[BigAl07]

I can see how that could be confusing. The quote from the lawyer was not to bolster my terrorism claim, it was to point out that there are many instances in which manned aircraft and drones ARE treated the same legally. Big Al said that they are not.

Hold on there just one minute! I was very specific in my reply and as you can see I was talking about the aspect of interfering with a sUAS flight and not every aspect of sUAS operations. You’re trying to say I made a blanket statement but I clearly stated what I was calling you out on.

Now take it down a notch and cool your jets on making it personal. I called you out specifically on your ridiculous “terrorism” comment and I stand by it 200%.

We can debate without making it personal.

 

[sar104]

I can see how that could be confusing. The quote from the lawyer was not to bolster my terrorism claim, it was to point out that there are many instances in which manned aircraft and drones ARE treated the same legally. Big Al said that they are not.

In which case I think you will find that the disagreement was based on the misunderstanding that resulted directly from that confusion. There are, indeed, many ways in which they are treated similarly, but I don't think that any current terrorism laws apply to interfering with sUAS operations.

 

[Sixgun89]

Nice trick to use, tell them you are contracted to survey for toxic and nuclear conditions have the cam set up for the overexposure warning and show them their house or car with the zebra stripes on them and tell them they have been exposed and should be careful where they park. Idiots eat that up.

 

[Nightwolf]

Nice trick to use, tell them you are contracted to survey for toxic and nuclear conditions have the cam set up for the overexposure warning and show them their house or car with the zebra stripes on them and tell them they have been exposed and should be careful where they park. Idiots eat that up.

It's scary to me how many people would go for that hook and all

 

[dirkclod]

Scares me thinking someone would tell someone that .